TRADE SUBSIDIES IN BRITAIN

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21412, 2 March 1935, Page 13

TRADE SUBSIDIES IN BRITAIN

♦ BENEFITS QUESTIONED SHIPPING FIRMS LOSE FREIGHTS ..CITED f'KES,s ASSOCIATION--BY EI.2CTBIC 'I ELEOI'.ArH —COI'V'UGHT.) (Received March 1, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, February 28. At a meeting of the Chamber of Shipping Mr L. C. Harris, in his presidential address, contrasted the effects of the Government's subsidy en tramp shipping with the effects of the subsidies on other trades. He said it was estimated that the latter would mean an annual loss to shipping in freight of between £ 350,000 and £400,000 for sugar, £375,000 for wheat and £200,000 for bacon.

The effects of the meat subsidy were not yet ascertainable, but recently refrigerated boats already on berth in Australia were faced with the sudden cancellation of bookings for 315,000 carcases. "One cannot avoid the deep impression that the benefits of these subsidies have not accrued," he said. "The increases in price which were expected have proved decreases. "The country appears to be the poorer to the extent of the subsidies, but in the shipping trade there is another aspect. The subsidy is a negligible amount, but it is intended as an indication to other nations that Great Britain has care for her shipping, and is prepared to take any measures necessary for its maintenance. -Many nations are beginning to take notice, and are giving new consideration to the shipping problems of their respective countries and the world. Therefore, with in-

Horn it able hopefulness, we shall endeavour to clamber up a step or two more of the staircase leading '•> the recovery of good health." MERITS OF TARIFFS AND QUOTAS GOVERNMENT'S VIEW EXPLAINED fPßlilsH omi'lAl. WIKEI.ESS.> RUGBY. February 28. Asked whether the Government intended to abandon the present system of quotas and restrictions on imported foodstuffs in favour of tariffs on agricultural produce with preference to the Dominions, Mr Stanley Baldwin said the Government had often stated its view that quantitative regulation was not necessarilv in all cases the most appropriate method of assisting the home agricultural industry. For example, the method adopted with regard to fruit and horticultural products had from the outset been that of import duties. The Government would prefer in the case of meat to follow broadly the precedent of the Wheat Act and proceed on the lines indicated by the Minister for Agriculture, but it was not possible to lay down a general rule as the circumstances of each case were different.